Saturday, October 13, 2007

Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea

Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea is a wonderful book by Carl Zimmer. The cover shows a bunch of different eyes ans it's meant to convey the idea that all these eyes have evolved from a common ancestor with primitive eyes.

Bill Dembski doesn't like this idea. He doesn't like the idea of evolution either. Here's a video where Dembski displays his ignorance about evolution in general and molecular evolution in particular. The title of his talk is "Molecular Machines and the Death of Darwinism."

I sometimes wonder just how intelligent Dembski is. Does he really think that the eye is our best example of the evolution of molecular machines. Does he think that the bacterial flagellum is the only other molecular machine? Apparently he does because he doesn't mention replisomes, photosynthesis complexes, blood clotting cascades, the citric acid cycle, or any of the other molecular machines and complex systems where we have a good handle on how they evolved.

But Dembski goes even further than complex machines. He has the inside track on some research that will bring down the Darwinian idol. It's at the level of individual proteins where we're finally going to see proof of the existence of God. I can hardly wait.

16 comments
:

I am not a biologist, nor do I play one on my blog; but if I had seen this only 7 years ago I might have been fooled by this presentation. From reading what you write here on Sandwalk, and before that on talk.origins (as well as through all of the other studying I have been doing along with that) I know that Dembski is lying through his teeth here; especially when he claims that "Darwinists" are satisfied with demonstrating a few pathways of natural development of the proteins needed for irreducibly complex systems to justify their denial of design.

I find it telling that he is propagandistically claiming that "darwinists" carry the burden of proof to demonstrate that natural forces can shape the complex mechanisms of life. He is a clever one, this Mr. Dembski, because as science has chipped away at the necessity for a watchmaker, they have found less and less reason to hope that a Designer's signature will ever be found.

He hides the fact that 19th century science's goals were to demonstrate the evidence of the watchmaker, and as the early biologists, paleontologists and geologists refined their methods and made more and more detailed discoveries they found themselves dismayed at the prospect that the creator would ever factually be demonstrated.

Those that refuse to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it. If this "new research" to which Dembski is privilege is ever published, you can bet that the Designers will either be fools to tout it or disquieted by what it actually reveals.

Mike, you're absolutely right. It's so depressing to look at the audience in that opening shot and think about how many people are not only being suckered into a lie about science, but by Dembski's very example, learning to foster bad faith about science today.

-------Dembski really has no grasp of philosophy of science does he? That and in the 1st minute he makes 2 logical fallacies, one argument from complexity and faulty assigning of the burden of proof.

Heh, "we're a minority!" 1st time I've actually seen that in use as an argument. So that's one persecution complex. Also the language he's using frames this further. Mind you Bill's a poor rhetorician anyhow.

And he doesn't even know how Darwin actually hypothesised about the evolution of the eye. It was only later that this was tested by observations and found to be mostly right.

Next complaint, saying it "evolved" is not the end of story for any one involved in research. We want to know how it evolved, what it evolved from and what drove that evolution, etc. What he says there is a strawman, as the "answer" ID provides is a true question blocker for the above, and ends up going straight in theological "hypothesis", or sidestepping the questions about the creator involved.

And I'm not going to even start on the "eye is so complex, layers and layers of complexity...". It's just empty rhetoric really.

Ugh, he really doesn't understand how science works, and he's probably wilfully ignorant of the actual research done into protein evolution. This isn't just bad, it's a stunning example of intellectual dishonesty on Dembski's part. The claim we hide behind the "complexity" of the bacterial flagellum being the main example. Either he's never looked at the research, or like most creationists (and I do view him as that) he's purposely, dogmatically ignoring it. Which is supported by ERV's series on that talk he recently gave.

So the new gap is sized on the order of a molecule? That is some small gods Dembski is devoted to.

Is it really so hard to understand that it is observations and theory that decides the type of evidence we demand, and not your proposed alternative? I don't think so, which makes me believe that even if Dembski is appallingly ignorant on the subjects he is supposed to work with, it is a willful public shell game he plays.

If leading creationists are lying ignorant scumbags with degenerate ideas instead of just ignorant they must be more intellectually incompetent than most of the later group. Not exactly the image you would want to project.

On a different track, I love Zimmer's book! I'd recommend it as an introduction to evolution for the non-specialist (such as myself), at least in terms of being readable and explaining elementary concepts.

There's a reason why Dembski refers to "Darwinian idol." We talked about it in my class on scientific controversies.

The goal of the Intelligent Design Creationists is not to promote God but to discredit evolution. Jonathan Wells published a book called "Icons of Evolution" in which he claimed that the ten main evidences for evolution are wrong.

Wells says that scientists believe in evolution because they have faith in materialism and not because of scientific evidence. This is something that Dembski believes as well. That's why they refer to the main lines of evidence for evolution as "idols." It's something we worship and not something that can stand up to close scrutiny.

Throw in liberal doses of "Darwinism" and you've successfully conveyed the notion of a group that's fixated on the words of a man who lived 150 years ago. Isn't this beginning to sound like a cult?

This is a clever rhetorical device and it resonates with the believers. They all know exactly what Dembski means when he says "Darwinian idols." He's referring the the false Gods of the scientific community.

Our side doesn't have such devices. Whenever we try to link the Intelligent Design Creationists with silly superstitions there are groups of people on our side who object. They say that we need to be more respectful of religious beliefs. It's not proper, according to them, to make fun of someone just because they believe in God or the Bible.

The result is that we fight this battle with two hands tied behind our back.

The title flashes on the screen, "Molecular Machines and the Death of Darwinism," meanwhile the background image is of nebulae and galaxies. WTF?

---

"It's the Darwinists who hold the positions of power, influence, and prestige in the academic setting

Note that as he says this, Dembski pauses to swallow some bile.

---

Dembski muffed the title of Zimmer's book. It is not "The Triumph of Evolution" but "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea." It is available in hardcover and paperback. It's darn good. I bought copies for my nieces and nephews.

> [Dembski] doesn't mention replisomes, photosynthesis complexes, blood clotting cascades, the citric acid cycle, or any of the other molecular machines and complex systems where we have a good handle on how they evolved.

But you should mention your counterexample, for one good counterexample overturns a general claim.

And blood clotting cascades, I think Behe wins this one, Miller upset me when I believed his depiction of clotting, and that Behe was refuted in his entire argument, until (thinking it's at least of historical interest) I read Behe's book, and realized I had been had--blood clotting does not resemble a simply Y diagram, nor has Doolittle addressed the complexity involved in getting a new factor with gene shuffling, nor is the complexity of inserting a new feedback loop addressed--this in fact being Dembski's point.

"Apparently he does because he doesn't mention replisomes, photosynthesis complexes, blood clotting cascades, the citric acid cycle, or any of the other molecular machines and complex systems where we have a good handle on how they evolved."

Regarding blood clotting cascades, Behe goes into great detail on how Doolittle seems to "knowlittle" regrading the evolution in an area that presumably he is a "world expert" on. You can go to the listed site below, which I found on a site entitled Evolution Audio Video, and listen to a lecture he gave a couple of years ago. In it he describes Doolittle's blundered critique of the concept of irreducible complexity in the blood clotting cascade, and leads Behe to the conclusion that this foremost expert doesn't know how the cascade evolved and is incapable of showing any kind of convincing evidence via years of research that would lead anyone to believe anybody has a "good handle" on it.Check it out at: http://maclaurin.org/mp3s/copyright_maclaurin_institute__michael_behe.mp3

Or go to the other mentioned website and find it under Michael Behe.

So If Larry Moron implies that the blood cotting cascade is one of several molecular machines and complex systems whose evolution is adequately demonstrated with actual results and understood, I am a little suspect (although I don't know) that perhaps he hasn't bothered to adequately study the research papers of any of them. Or maybe not in any kind of critical fashion. So maybe it is the old deal of "well, somebody in the field must have proved it, that's what I have been told, therefore it must be true". Just the kind of thing that non-creationists along with creationists (who modern evolutionists love to label any one who sees the problems, just load em all onto the Titanic and shove it off)are tired of. Assertions and conclusions which have not been ADEQUATELY supported by the research, but "gosh darn it, I can imagine that it might be compatible with my beloved dogma. We've been able to sell it so far. Screw the inconvenient details. Everybody knows we are the experts. And besides there are no other foxes in the chicken house but us."

Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.

Sandwalk

The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Subscribe to Sandwalk

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.